Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

So why has the 911 section here, all but dried up in the past year? Even the conspiracy shows on tv have moved on.

Good question and since I was not her for the past year, I couldn't say for sure.

But I have seen mentioned that the 9.11 threads here at ATS were under heavy moderation at some time during that span. I don't know why but I do know
what I read.

VERY good observation!!!!!!

The moderation you're referring to was becuase a certain 9/11 conspiracy website...which deserves to remain nameless for its infamy...invaded ATS to
stir up artificial controversy and confrontation with sock puppet accounts and get people to log onto their web site. I distinctly remember one
poster pretending to be a twenty year old woman who seemed to know quite a LOT about the physics of aircraft design well beyond what a twenty year old
woman would reasonably know. I'm not certain what incident triggered it, but the 9/11 forum was shut down for some serious spring cleaning.

That brings up the question- seeing that there has been that much less activity on the 9/11 forum since the spring cleaning, does that mean the huge
majority of people who were posting the "irrefutable truth behind the 9/11 attack" here on ATS were in fact sock puppet accounts from said
conspiracy web sites deliberately creating artificial controversy?

Notice ANOK, that there is no asterisk, no exceptions based on the size or shape of the building, no special set of rules that exempt structures from
the list based on "never happened before". Nothing to substantiate your delusions of "since it never happened before it will never happen because
its impossible."

Incident command should consider the following when determining collapse potential:
•Structural inadequacy, poor construction, illegal or non engineered renovations
•Fire size and location, and conditions on arrival
•Age of building
•Previous fire
•Fire load to structural members
•Backdraft or explosions
•Engineered lumber, truss joists, nail plates
•Load increase as a result of water load
•Cutting structural members during venting operations
•Cracks or bulges in wall
•Water or smoke that pushes through what appears to be a solid masonry wall
•Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling
•Truck operations notice soft or spongy footing
•Weather extremes

Among the recommndations it makes to fire departments are:
•Implement and review occupational safety programs and standard operating procedures.
•Ensure that the incident commander conducts an initial size-up and risk assessment of the incident scene. before beginning interior firefighting.
•Ensure that the incident commander always maintains accountability for all personnel at a fire scene, both by location and function.

Here's what gets me. Even if someone can admit that building 7 was pulled because of structural damage, how do they then continue that logic. As
most know I'm a skeptic and delete by way of logic when I can. In this case logic leads to only debunking the os.

So how do you continue that logic? Well, how in the world could they pull building 7 due to structural damage? Planting charges and general preparing
to take down a 47 story building would take a couple weeks. Yet you want to tell me they set up and pulled building 7 in a matter of a few hours?
While scary office fires were managing to weaken a steal framed 47 story building? Which I obviously don't buy,

Not entirely. Much debate about how bad those fires were. Plants don't have to be on every floor. Plus, smoother them with asbestos and I would
assume they can withstand a paper fire on the same floor.

Building fires happen in every country on the planet.
There are fire departments in every country.
Almost all have special training.

Why hasn't some fireman from some other country said . . .
"Our training says fire won't take down steel buildings."

Wouldn't you think that experts from Iran, N Korea, Cuba would have come forward and say BS to the OS when it comes to fire???

To believe that WTC7 was part of some conspiracy you would have to explain why no experts have ever come forward to say BS to the fire theory.
Do you think the US has the ability to hush Iran? N Korea? Venezuela?

Not entirely. Much debate about how bad those fires were. Plants don't have to be on every floor. Plus, smoother them with asbestos and I would
assume they can withstand a paper fire on the same floor.

But the collapse initiated from an area of severe fires. There also were no explosive devices heard prior to collapse of the WTC7. Fires and heat
would degrade any wiring or set off explosives prematurely.

They reported bombs? They had actual visual confirmation of actual explosive devices in and around the WTCs? Really?

I am shocked! Wait, did
they see them, or did they hear things go boom? You do know that "sounds like bombs, sounded like explosives, sounded like" does not equal actual
bombs or explosives. i thought by now you people would at least realize what a simile is. I have no doubt at all that firefighters heard explosions
or things go boom during 9/11. Hell I watched a garage fire a few years back, and heard quite a few explosions emanate from it. Not once did I go
"ZOMG!1! BOMBS!! Bombs are in the garage! it was all planned!!!"

If there were rivers of molten steel, then I am amazed to hear they survived to tell about it. In order for steel to be a molten river, it needs to
be over 2,000F continuously. A furnace like that requires special heat shielding like in a blast furnace, but even that only gives short time
protection.

Also what kind of explosives create long lasting puddles of molten steel? Just curious.

Let's start with how many of those countless office fires ever brought down a Skyscraper. Answer: 3 All on 9/11

Research firefighters for truth

Research architects for truth.

Impossible to have discourse when you don't we all the facts

edit on 20-3-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

Firefighters for truth and architects for truth are carbon copy sites that spew the same old crap word for word. Same lies, same halftruths, same
misinformation, and same old deception. I am surprised those site are still operating.

Let's start with how many of those countless office fires ever brought down a Skyscraper. Answer: 3 All on 9/11

How many office fires were started by a plane full of fuel?
How many went unfought?

Research firefighters for truth

Research architects for truth.

Are these websites generating revenue?
How much money can these sites make if they aspouse the OS? Hint: none

Some people say follow the money trail in 911.
I say follow the money trail on these 'truther' sites.

Why has Richard Gage refused admission to his conferences to certain people?
There are YT vids where he refuses to answer certain questions.
If he is an 'expert' why hasn't he produced a paper for peer review detailing how the buildings were demo'ed?

He claims to be an expert.
He claims to have the plans for the building.
But he can't produce a paper? It's been 11 years. No paper from a self proclaimed 'expert'? You don't smell a rat??

All you're doing is taking arguments on the surface and trying to debate points without getting to the nitty gritty.

It wasn't just hearing things go boom. It was trained firefighters knowing the different noises. Differences you nor I are trained to decipher.
Plus fire fighters hard booooms in the basement before the building fell. And that's just scratching the surface.

Again. Answer how building 7 was the first building to fall due to office fire. The physics are impossible. And yes I'm ignoring 1 and 2, conceding
I have no idea what would happen when planes crash. Although my logic feels me jet fuel didn't do anything structurally significant, as 90% of the
fuel burned away in the initial fire ball

But then you have to suspend belief that the demo charges were all magically fireproofed to withstand smoke and fire and heat, and impact.

But that's the point WTC7 was not impacted, yet fell as if it was a professional demolition job.

It was impacted. By debris from Towers 1 and 2. The last one left a gash down its face and knocked off chunks of the corners. Also set fires across
multiple floors which burned for nearly 6 hours straight without a drop of water put on it.

All you're doing is taking arguments on the surface and trying to debate points without getting to the nitty gritty.

It wasn't just hearing things go boom. It was trained firefighters knowing the different noises. Differences you nor I are trained to decipher.
Plus fire fighters hard booooms in the basement before the building fell. And that's just scratching the surface.

Really? I had no idea firefighters are trained to tell the differences between explosions and sounds like what. That is simply amazing. They are not
able to tell if a structure is showing signs of collapse, but they can tell the difference between a bomb and a loud report of steel snapping, or gas
lines exploding, or large debris impacting. Also have not heard about firefighters hearing explosions in the basements either. must be a new one that
cropped up and is being passed off as a "fact". If there were explosions in the basements, then why didnt the collapses initiate from there?

Again. Answer how building 7 was the first building to fall due to office fire. The physics are impossible. And yes I'm ignoring 1 and 2, conceding
I have no idea what would happen when planes crash. Although my logic feels me jet fuel didn't do anything structurally significant, as 90% of the
fuel burned away in the initial fire ball

It is the first tall structure to get impacted by large debris and having multiple floors on fire without any firefighter assistance in putting it
out. As for jet fuel, that is in the WTC towers. They had plenty of fuel inside the offices that can burn. All the jet fuel did was act like the
starter fluid for the charcoal. i thought this was at least easy to understand or at least figure out. if you want to see a large office fire that
did not have any jet fuel in it, Windsor Tower is a good study. Also a great study on how steel behaves in a fire. The top section of steel failed
within two hours of initiation. All that survived was a massive steel-reinforced concrete core with concrete pillars and massive concrete technical
floors. The steel collapsed all by itself without any impacts or jet fuel and all that burned was office supplies. Windsor Tower Fire
Study.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.